Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1359
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC and
`SMARTFLASH TECHNOLOGIES
`LIMITED
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC., ROBOT
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`KINGSISLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`and GAME CIRCUS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-447
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Limited file this Original
`
`Complaint against Defendants Apple Inc., Robot Entertainment, Inc., KingsIsle Entertainment,
`
`Inc., and Game Circus LLC for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and allege, based on
`
`their own personal knowledge with respect to their own actions and based upon information and
`
`belief with respect to all others’ actions, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Smartflash LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of Texas, and maintains its principal place of business at 100 E.
`
`Ferguson, Suite 406, Tyler, Texas, 75702. Smartflash LLC maintains a website at
`
`www.smartflashllc.com.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Apple Exhibit 1202 Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 1360
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Smartflash Technologies Limited is a limited company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, and maintains a principal place of business
`
`on the island of Tortola.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a California corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple has designated CT
`
`Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201 as its agent
`
`for service of process.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Robot Entertainment, Inc. (“Robot Entertainment”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with a principal place of business at 5055 W. Park Blvd., Ste. 600, Plano, Texas 75093.
`
`Robot Entertainment has designated CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste.
`
`2900, Dallas, Texas 75201 as its agent for service of process.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc. (“KingsIsle”) is a Texas corporation with a
`
`principal place of business at 2745 Dallas Parkway, Suite 620, Plano, Texas 75093.
`
`KingsIsle has designated David Nichols, 2745 Dallas Parkway, Suite 620, Plano, Texas
`
`75093 as its agent for service of process.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Game Circus LLC (“Game Circus”) is a limited liability corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with a principal place of business at
`
`15400 Knoll Trail Drive, Suite 230, Dallas, Texas 75248. Game Circus has designated
`
`Kim L. Lawrence, 5720 LBJ Freeway, Suite 470, Dallas, Texas 75240 as its agent for
`
`service of process.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 1361
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple, Robot Entertainment, KingsIsle, and
`
`Game Circus (“Defendants”). Defendants conduct business and have committed acts of
`
`patent infringement and/or have induced acts of patent infringement by others in this
`
`district and/or have contributed to patent infringement by others in this district, the State
`
`of Texas, and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b)
`
`because, among other things, the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`district, the Defendants have regularly conducted business in this judicial district, and
`
`certain of the acts complained of herein occurred in this judicial district.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`On February 26, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 (the “’720 patent”) entitled “Data Storage and Access
`
`Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’720 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`11.
`
`On May 17, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 (the “’317 patent”) entitled “Data Storage and Access
`
`Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’317 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`12.
`
`On October 11, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 (the “’458 patent”) entitled “Data Storage and Access
`
`Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’458 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`13.
`
`On November 22, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 (the “’598 patent”) entitled “Data Storage and Access
`
`Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’598 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 1362
`
`14.
`
`On February 21, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 (the “’221 patent”) entitled “Data Storage and Access
`
`Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’221 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`15.
`
`On December 25, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772 (the “’772 patent”) entitled “Data Storage and Access
`
`Systems.” A true and correct copy of the ’772 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`16.
`
`Smartflash LLC, together with Smartflash Technologies Limited,1 owns all rights, title,
`
`and interest in and to the ’720, ’317, ’458, ’598, ’221, and ’772 patents (the “patents-in-
`
`suit”) and possesses all rights of recovery.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`17.
`
`The patents-in-suit generally cover a portable data carrier for storing data and managing
`
`access to the data via payment information and/or use status rules. The patents-in-suit
`
`also generally cover a computer network (i.e., a server network) that serves data and
`
`manages access to data by, for example, validating payment information.
`
`18.
`
`In or around the year 2000, Patrick Racz, one of the co-inventors of the patents-in-suit,
`
`met with various personnel of Gemplus (now Gemalto S.A.) to discuss the technology
`
`claimed in the patents-in-suit. Mr. Augustin Farrugia was one of the people at Gemplus
`
`who learned of the technology of the patents-in-suit.
`
`19. Mr. Farrugia subsequently joined Apple and is currently a Senior Director at Apple Inc.
`
`20.
`
`iTunes is an Apple application that supports the purchase, download, organization and
`
`playback of digital audio and video files and is available for both Mac and Windows-
`
`based computers.
`
`
`1 Smartflash Technologies Limited joins as a co-plaintiff in this lawsuit only to avoid a dispute
`as to whether it should be added for standing purposes.
`-4-
`
`
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 1363
`
`21.
`
`iTunes Store is an Apple service that allows customers to discover, purchase, rent, and
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`download applications and other digital content.
`
`iTunes is integrated with the iTunes Store.
`
`Apple sells and delivers digital content and applications through the iTunes Store, which
`
`includes Apple’s App Store and iBookstore.
`
`24.
`
`The Mac App Store is an Apple service that allows Apple’s customers to purchase,
`
`download and install Mac applications.
`
`25.
`
`Apple’s end-user customers can use the App Store app on their portable Apple devices,
`
`such as the iPhone, iPad, iPad Mini and iPod Touch, to purchase and download digital
`
`content and applications.
`
`26.
`
`An application developer or publisher can use Apple’s in-application payment
`
`functionality to collect payment for enhanced functionality or additional content usable
`
`by the application.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Apple provides its in-application payment functionality through its Store Kit framework.
`
`Apple’s Store Kit connects to the App Store on behalf of an application to securely
`
`process payments from the user.
`
`29.
`
`Apple’s Store Kit prompts the user to authorize the payment and then notifies the
`
`application that called Store Kit so that the application can provide items the user
`
`purchased.
`
`30.
`
`An application developer or publisher can use Apple’s iAd advertising platform to deliver
`
`ads to users.
`
`31.
`
`Apple sells the ads through its iAd advertising platform and serves such ads to iAd
`
`enabled apps.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 1364
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Apple provides its iAd advertising platform through its iOS SDK.
`
`Apple provides its iAd advertising platform through its iAd Creative Toolkit.
`
`Apple provides its iAd advertising platform through its iAd Bundle Development Kit.
`
`Robot Entertainment sells an app through Apple’s App Store called “Hero Academy.”
`
`“Hero Academy” uses Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment
`
`for enhanced functionality or additional content.
`
`“Hero Academy” contains in-application advertising functionality.
`
`KingsIsle sells apps, specifically “Grub Guardian” and “WizardBlox,” through Apple’s
`
`App Store.
`
`39.
`
`“Grub Guardian” uses Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment
`
`for enhanced functionality or additional content.
`
`40.
`
`“WizardBlox” uses Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment for
`
`enhanced functionality or additional content.
`
`41.
`
`Game Circus sells apps through Apple’s App Store and develops apps that are sold
`
`through Apple’s App Store.
`
`42.
`
`Game Circus sells and develops apps that require payment (such as “Coin Dozer Pro”),
`
`apps that use Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment for
`
`enhanced functionality or additional content (such as “Coin Dozer - Halloween”), and
`
`apps that use Apple’s iAd functionality (such as “Coin Dozer – Halloween”).
`
`43.
`
`Apple has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 (i) with any version of iTunes that can access iTunes Store; (ii) with any
`
`version of the App Store app; (iii) with any version of any Apple hardware or software
`
`product (e.g., Apple’s various iPhone products, Apple’s various iPad products, Apple’s
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 1365
`
`various Apple TV products, Apple’s various Mac computer products, Apple’s various
`
`operating system software, etc.) that includes any version of iTunes or the App Store app
`
`that can access iTunes Store; (iv) with any version of Mac App Store; (v) with any Apple
`
`hardware or software product that includes any version of Mac App Store; and (vi) with
`
`Apple’s internal servers, including those involved in operating Apple’s iTunes Store,
`
`including Apple’s App Store, Apple’s Mac App Store as well as Apple’s servers involved
`
`in Apple’s in-application payment functionality or availability of iTunes Store, App
`
`Store, or Mac App Store content via iCloud as well as Apple’s servers involved in
`
`Apple’s iAd Network (collectively referred to as “Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`In committing these acts of infringement, Apple acted despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of at least one valid patent, and Apple
`
`actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk
`
`of infringement of at least one valid and enforceable patent.
`
`44.
`
`Robot Entertainment has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 with its “Hero Academy” app.
`
`45.
`
`KingsIsle has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 with its “Grub Guardian” and “WizardBlox” apps.
`
`46.
`
`Game Circus has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 with its apps that require payment and with its apps that use Apple’s in-
`
`application payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced functionality or
`
`additional content and with its apps that provide in-application advertising.
`
`47.
`
`The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of infringement listed above.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 1366
`
`48.
`
`The Defendants’ acts of infringement listed above are with respect to or arise out of the
`
`same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the
`
`making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same
`
`accused product or process.
`
`49.
`
`Questions of fact common to all Defendants exist and will arise in this action.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`COUNT ONE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY APPLE
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`As described below, Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit.
`
`Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities meet claims of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Apple makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities
`
`within the United States or into the United States without authority from Plaintiffs.
`
`Apple therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Apple has actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by inducing infringement by others, such as
`
`product assemblers, resellers, app developers and publishers, digital content publishers,
`
`and end-user customers, by, for example, requiring product assemblers to import Apple’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities into the United States, by encouraging resellers to sell and
`
`offer to sell Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities within the United States, by instructing
`
`and encouraging app developers and publishers and digital content publishers to sell and
`
`offer to sell digital content, applications and advertisements in the United States through
`
`Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities, and by instructing end-user customers to install and
`
`use Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities in the United States.
`
`57.
`
`Apple took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 1367
`
`58.
`
`Apple was aware of the patents-in-suit and knew that the others’ actions, if taken, would
`
`constitute infringement of those patents. Alternatively, Apple believed there was a high
`
`probability that others would infringe the patents-in-suit but remained willfully blind to
`
`the infringing nature of others’ actions. Apple therefore infringes the patents-in-suit
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`59.
`
`Apple indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by contributing to infringement by others,
`
`such as product assemblers, resellers, app developers and publishers, digital content
`
`publishers, and end-user customers by offering to sell and/or selling within the United
`
`States products that contain components that constitute a material part of the inventions
`
`claimed in the patents-in-suit, and components of products that are used to practice one or
`
`more processes/methods covered by the claims of the patents-in-suit and that constitute a
`
`material part of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. Such components are, for
`
`example, the software components responsible for purchasing of digital content or
`
`applications from iTunes, the App Store, or the Mac App Store, the software components
`
`responsible for providing digital content or applications upon payment validation, the
`
`software components that provide in-application payment functionality, the software
`
`components that provide in-application advertising functionality, the software
`
`components that store payment distribution information indicating to whom payments
`
`should be made for purchased digital content or applications, and the software
`
`components that install, on a computer or server, any version of iTunes that can access
`
`iTunes Store, any version of the App Store app, or any version of the Mac App Store.
`
`60.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, Apple has known these components to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the patents-in-suit and
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 1368
`
`that these components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Apple believed there was a high probability
`
`that others would infringe the patents-in-suit but remained willfully blind to the
`
`infringing nature of others’ actions. Apple therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`61.
`
`Apple’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to
`
`recover from Apple the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Apple’s wrongful
`
`acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of
`
`Apple have caused, are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the
`
`Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs for which there
`
`is no adequate remedy at law, and for which Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`62.
`
`Apple has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 with the Apple Accused Instrumentalities. In committing these acts of
`
`infringement, Apple acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions
`
`constituted infringement of at least one valid patent, and Apple actually knew or should
`
`have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of at
`
`least one valid and enforceable patent.
`
`Apple’s infringement of the patents-in-suit has been and continues to be willful.
`
`To the extent that Apple releases any new version of Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`
`such instrumentalities meet the claims of the patents-in-suit and infringe 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Apple’s current infringement described above.
`
`-10-
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1369
`
`COUNT TWO: PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`BY ROBOT ENTERTAINMENT
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`As described below, Robot Entertainment has infringed and continues to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`Robot Entertainment’s “Hero Academy” app meets claims of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Robot Entertainment makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports “Hero Academy”
`
`within the United States or into the United States without authority from Plaintiffs.
`
`Robot Entertainment therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Robot Entertainment has actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Robot Entertainment indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by inducing infringement by
`
`its end-user customers to install and use “Hero Academy” within the United States.
`
`Robot Entertainment took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Robot Entertainment is aware of the patents-in-suit and knows that the others’ actions,
`
`when taken, constitute infringement of those patents. Robot Entertainment therefore
`
`infringes the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`74.
`
`Robot Entertainment indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by contributing to
`
`infringement by its end-user customers by offering to sell and/or selling within the United
`
`States products that contain components that constitute a material part of the inventions
`
`claimed in the patents-in-suit, and components of products that are used to practice one or
`
`more processes/methods covered by the claims of the patents-in-suit and that constitute a
`
`material part of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. Such components are, for
`
`example, the software components that provide in-application payment functionality, the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1370
`
`software components that provide in-application advertising functionality, and the
`
`software components that install “Hero Academy.”
`
`75.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, Robot Entertainment has known these
`
`components to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the
`
`patents-in-suit and that these components are not a staple article or commodity of
`
`commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Robot Entertainment therefore
`
`infringes the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`76.
`
`To the extent that Robot Entertainment releases any other app that requires payment or
`
`that uses Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced
`
`functionality or additional content, such apps meet claims of the patents-in-suit and
`
`infringe 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Robot Entertainment’s current
`
`infringement described above.
`
`COUNT THREE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY KINGSISLE
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`As described below, KingsIsle has infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit.
`
`KingsIsle’s “Grub Guardian” and “WizardBlox” apps meet claims of the patents-in-suit.
`
`KingsIsle makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports “Grub Guardian” and
`
`“WizardBlox” within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`KingsIsle therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`KingsIsle has actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
`
`-12-
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1371
`
`83.
`
`KingsIsle indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by inducing infringement by its end-user
`
`customers to install and use “Grub Guardian” and “WizardBlox” within the United
`
`States.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`KingsIsle took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`KingsIsle is aware of the patents-in-suit and knows that the others’ actions, when taken,
`
`constitute infringement of those patents. KingsIsle therefore infringes the patents-in-suit
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`86.
`
`KingsIsle indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by contributing to infringement by its
`
`end-user customers by offering to sell and/or selling within the United States products
`
`that contain components that constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the
`
`patents-in-suit, and components of products that are used to practice one or more
`
`processes/methods covered by the claims of the patents-in-suit and that constitute a
`
`material part of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. Such components are, for
`
`example, the software components that provide in-application payment functionality and
`
`the software components that install “Grub Guardian” and “WizardBlox.”
`
`87.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, KingsIsle has known these components to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the patents-in-suit and
`
`that these components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. KingsIsle therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`88.
`
`To the extent that KingsIsle releases any other app that requires payment or that uses
`
`Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced
`
`functionality or additional content, such apps meet claims of the patents-in-suit and
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1372
`
`infringe 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to KingsIsle’s current infringement
`
`described above.
`
`COUNT FOUR: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY GAME CIRCUS LLC
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`As described below, Game Circus has infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`91.
`
`Game Circus’s apps that require payment and apps that use Apple’s in-application
`
`payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced functionality or additional content
`
`and apps that its apps that provide in-application advertising meet claims of the patents-
`
`in-suit.
`
`92.
`
`Game Circus makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports apps that require payment
`
`and apps that use Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment for
`
`enhanced functionality or additional content and apps that use Apple’s in-application
`
`advertising functionality within the United States or into the United States without
`
`authority from Plaintiffs.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`Game Circus therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Game Circus has actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Game Circus indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by inducing infringement by its end-
`
`user customers to install and use apps that require payment and apps that use Apple’s in-
`
`application payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced functionality or
`
`additional content and apps that use Apple’s in-application advertising functionality
`
`within the United States.
`
`96.
`
`Game Circus took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1373
`
`97.
`
`Game Circus is aware of the patents-in-suit and knows that the others’ actions, when
`
`taken, constitute infringement of those patents. Game Circus therefore infringes the
`
`patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`98.
`
`Game Circus indirectly infringes the patents-in-suit by contributing to infringement by its
`
`end-user customers by offering to sell and/or selling within the United States products
`
`that contain components that constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the
`
`patents-in-suit, and components of products that are used to practice one or more
`
`processes/methods covered by the claims of the patents-in-suit and that constitute a
`
`material part of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. Such components are, for
`
`example, the software components that provide in-application payment functionality, the
`
`software components that provide in-application advertising functionality and the
`
`software components that install apps that require payment and apps that use Apple’s in-
`
`application payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced functionality or
`
`additional content.
`
`99.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, Game Circus has known these components to
`
`be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the patents-in-suit
`
`and that these components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. Game Circus therefore infringes the patents-in-suit under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`100. To the extent that Game Circus releases any other app that requires payment or that uses
`
`Apple’s in-application payment functionality to collect payment for enhanced
`
`functionality or additional content or that uses Apple’s in-application advertising
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1374
`
`functionality, such apps meet claims of the patents-in-suit and infringe 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Game Circus’s current infringement described above.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury for all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`1. A judgment that the Defendants have directly infringed the patents-in-suit, contributorily
`
`infringed the patents-in-suit, and/or induced the infringement of the patents-in-suit;
`
`2. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the Defendants and their officers,
`
`directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns, and
`
`those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
`
`contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the patents-in-suit;
`
`3. A judgment that Apple’s infringement of the patents-in-suit has been willful;
`
`4. A ruling that this case be found to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and a judgment
`
`awarding to Plaintiffs its attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action;
`
`5. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs damages under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict
`
`infringement up until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and
`
`enhanced damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`6. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs the costs of this action
`
`(including all disbursements);
`
`7. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 1375
`
`8. A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction preventing
`
`future acts of infringement is not granted, that Plaintiffs be awarded a compulsory
`
`ongoing licensing fee; and
`
`9. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Page 00017
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 1376
`
`Dated: November 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`
` a
`Bradley W. Caldwell
`Texas State Bar No. 24040630
`Email: bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`John Austin Curry
`Texas State Bar No. 24059636
`Email: acurry@caldwellcc.com
`Daniel R. Pearson
`Texas State Bar No. 24070398
`Email: dpearson@caldwellcc.com
`Hamad M. Hamad
`Texas State Bar No. 24061268
`Email: hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`John F. Summers
`Texas State Bar No. 24079417
`Email: jsummers@caldwellcc.com
`Jason S. McManis
`Texas State Bar No. 24088032
`Email: jmcmanis@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`T. John Ward
`Texas State Bar No. 20848000
`Email: tjw@wsfirm.com
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`Email: jw@wsfirm.com
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`P.O. Box 1231
`1127 Judson Road, Suite 220
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Telephone: (903) 757-6400
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`Page 00018
`
`

`

`Case 6:13-cv-00447-MHS-KNM Document 72 Filed 11/25/13 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 1377
`
`Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`SMARTFLASH LLC AND
`SMARTFLASH TECHNOLOGIES
`LIMITED
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
`
`have consented to electronic service on this 25th day of November, 2013. Local Rule CV-
`
`5(a)(3)(A).
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bradley W. Caldwell
`Bradley W. Caldwell
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`Page 00019
`
`